Crying victimization in the media yet again, this time to Politico. Jim Zumbo accepted his career’s public hanging with more grace and class, and at least tried to make things right. And what Zumbo said was a lot worse. He’s continuing to feed the narrative of a gun rights movement dominated by extremists and foaming mad dogs to our enemies who are the media.

The existing body of literature and legal precedent on the Second Amendment is much like the Bible: One can find something to support nearly any agenda. Even the Founders themselves wrote many different things at different times (with commas in different places) about what they meant by a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Or by “well regulated.” Or by “militia.” I wish more people would actually read those writings.

The problem is that a lot of us have read those writings, and there absolutely no support for your take on the meaning of “well-regulated” in late 18th century usage, or support for the idea that the exercise of the right could be preconditioned on something like a training requirement. It could be argued that the American gun culture of the late 18th century was very different from today, and I would even agree with many points in that regard, but the fact is there were no laws around that time that preconditioned the rights exercise on training. There was mandatory militia service, but that was a function of the state’s military powers, not its police powers.

Both sides believe they have the American mainstream on their side. But when Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to bar convicted felons from acquiring guns, the American mainstream stops listening. When Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to require any training whatsoever before carrying a concealed firearm in public, the American mainstream stops listening.

Except you weren’t writing for the American mainstream. You were writing for subscribers of Guns & Ammo. I might believe the courts are unlikely to strike down training requirements, but you basically said that we ought to like it. I don’t. Much like prior restraints can’t be constitutionally placed on speech, I don’t believe they ought to be constitutionally placed on the right to bear arms either. While I generally share Metcalfe’s concern about not pushing so far that the American mainstream will lash back, I’m willing to argue until I’m blue in the face that the Second Amendment ought to be treated as equals among rights, and that means not creating special conditions that would never fly with other rights, prior restrains being among them.

When I first saw the New York Times article about Metcalfe, I wondered how they even learned about the controversy. There is the fine hand of some public-relations operative here, and I wonder who it is and, more importantly, who is paying him or her. As I said on View from the Porch, these things — synchronized media coverage — don’t “just happen.”

That’s a good point, especially given the treasure trove of info in the MAIG emails released because of that FOID request on NYC. The MAIG folks were ready with a full court press attack a mere couple of hours after Newton. They thought it was THE moment for them to get everything they ever dreamed about. I would agree with you that such positive coverage of his pickle is not an accident. Why did he write the column in that tone in the first. Probably not an accident as well.

You know the next time someone goes “Hey I’ like guns but let’s try to think about some reasonable restrictions that are acceptable”….

People will wonder if it’s another Metcalfe.

Especially if Dick’s “evolution” continues on it’s current trajectory.

And of course he ignores the tedious little fact that he’s the one who is historically ignorant and coming off as an arrogant dogmatic. Never-mind his whole tone of “These restrictions are good so take your medicine!” and “Maybe if I’m thin enough the cheerleaders will like me!”

At this point, he’s just showing his true colors. “Dick Metcalf is an ordinary unemployed American citizen”, NYT, Politico. Just like in his article, he wants to show just how wrong we are. And he somehow thinks that going over to the enemy will win favors with us? No. He’s just doing it to flip us the bird as he rides into retirement.

This is a real learning experience for all of us. When we make a mistake, take a pause, breathe, and learn from it, then express humility.

You know who can’t do that? People who are so arrogant they think they deserve a lifestyle FOR LIFE. No way; you gotta keep earning a position every year, year after year. You can’t hit a certain age and then think you have carte blanche.

When you’ve been wined and dined for decades, do you really think you “deserve” it forever?

I disagree with the content of his original “well regulated” article, but this is the precise mirror image of the many PC lynchings which have happened to people who are accused of saying “racist” things, as only one example.

And while I’m opposed to LTCF training requirements because of the enormous potential for abuse, I don’t believe they’re unconstitutional as long as they aren’t used only as roadblocks to the exercise of a right. The easiest way to ensure this is to make the police follow the same standard as anybody else.

Not all barriers to the exercise of a right are unconstitutional. As things stand now, we don’t have even intermediate scrutiny to protect us from these barriers. It sucks, but Metcalfe may at least be technically correct.

To facilitate the exercise of the individual, inherent privacy right to have an abortion the government funds Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500MILLION per year, so financial considerations are not a limit on the exercise of the right.

Will all public schools now offer free mandatory firearm safety and use training to all students, taught by NRA or NSSF or GOA certified instructors, paid for by the school system?

Will the federal government pay for firearm training (including the loan of a firearm and ammo) for all citizens, so we can all exercise our right to keep and bear arms under the government-imposed mandate that training is required first? And will the training be pass/fail, graded, or just “required” before exercise of the right?

Will everyone also receive free government training in the exercise of other Constitutionally protected, individual, inherent rights that are not to be infringed?

“At the same time, IMO’s vice president/editorial director, Jim Bequette, was removed from his position as editor of Guns & Ammo, where he had assigned and approved the column. He retains his larger role in the company.”

Apparently our work is not done. Bequette needs to explain more candidly his actions and the timeline over which they occurred.